State of Kerala vs Kurien K. Ulahannan

Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.—The State Government, the Director of Public Instruction, Trivandrum and the Assistant Educational Officer, Changanacherry, have filed this appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge allowing O.P. No. 2757 of 1977 and directing that the entry as to the date of birth in the writ Petitioner''s service register is liable to be corrected on the basis of the corrections made in the school records, and declaring that the Petitioner is liable to retire only on 27th October 1977. The 1st Respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the entries in the school-records of the Petitioner as corrected by the Commissioner for Government Examinations by Ext. P-1 order.

The writ Petitioner''s date of birth as entered in the service register was 15th Edavam 1096 M.E./27th April 1921. That would place his date of retirement on superannuation as 26th April 1976. He applied on 1st January 1974 (not produced) to the Deputy Commissioner for Examinations for correction of his date of birth as shown in the school records as 11th Thulam 1098 M.E./27th October 1922. By Ext. P-6, dated 30th April 1974 the Deputy Commissioner directed the Petitioner to make the application before the appropriate authority who was the Commissioner for Examinations. This was done, and Ext. P-7, dated 18th July 1974 is a copy of the application before the Commissioner. The correction prayed for was allowed by order of the Commissioner, dated 15th November 1974 of which Ext. P-1 is a copy, Ext. P-2 being a copy, of the corrected certified extract from the Vernacular School Leaving Certificate. Thereafter and on the strength, presumably, of Exts. P-1 and P-2, the Petitioner applied by Ext. P-3, dated 7th April 1975 to the Assistant Educational Officer for correction of the entry as to the date of birth in the service records. This was rejected by Ext. P-4 order of the Government rejecting the proposal of the Director of Public Instruction. The writ Petition was to quash Ext. P-4 order.

The learned Judge was of the view that the correction as to the date of birth having been made in the school records, a corresponding correction of the date of birth had to be made in the service book as well. That material part of the learned Judge''s judgment reads for follows:

In such circumstances, I do not see why the bona fides of the Petitioner''s claim should be still in doubt, I am of the view that a corresponding correction of the Petitioner''s date of birth has to be made in service book as well He is entitled to be treated(sic) person liable to retire only on 27th October 1977 - I therefore direct the 1st Respondent to pass ''appropriate orders on the basic of the relevant entries in the Petitioner''s school records as corrected; by the Commissioner for Government Examinations by his Ext. P-1 order.

We are unable to share the learned Judge''s view. The jurisdiction of the Government to correct entries in the service Register fell for consideration in a number-of decision of this Court. It is enough to refer to O.P. No. 3500 of 1972 decided by one of us (myself) and to W.A. No 7 of 1974 which arose as an off-shoot of the, proceedings dealt with in the earlier mentioned writ Petition. These have been examined the relevant G.Os, on the subject. See further, the decision, in Narayanan v. State of Kerala ILR 1977 Ker 562 Kerala 562, and in W.A. 361; of 1976 (this appeal), We desire to point out that while the G.Os. dealt with the correction of the date of birth in service records relating to Government servants, there was, till recently, no G.O. for correction of an entry as to the date of birth in the service register of a private aided school teacher like the Petitioner The omission was supplied by G.O. MS. 139/76/G Edn dated 17th July 1976 by which G.O. MS. 39/72/(sic) dated 22nd January 1972 applicable to Government servants for correction of entry as to date of birth and a later G.O. (G.O. MS. 123/76/PD., dated 16th June 1975), were made applicable to private aided teachers as well. There was provision in this G.O. of 17th July 1976 that all pending applications will be disposed of independent of this order. The Petitioner''s application was not pending at the time when this G.O., dated 17th July 1976 came into force. It had already been disposed of by Ext. P-4, dated 28th April 1976. For that reason, therefore, the writ Petitioner can derive no assistance from the G.O. of 17th July 1976.

Even if that the provisions of the above G.O. of 17th July 1976 can be stretched to cover the case of the writ Petitioner, there are still two difficulties in his way. He made out no exceptional grounds and circumstances why, in the language of the G.O., dated 21st January 1972 he "did not and could not" have had an opportunity to make his request for correction of his date of birth.

Next, there is provision in the G.O., dated 16th July 1975 read as item 2 in the later G.O., dated 17th July 1976 that correction of the date of birth in the school-register will not, and cannot, automatically entail a correction of the date of birth in the service register. In view of this, and we should think even apart from this - the learned Judge was wrong in concluding that once the school-register was corrected in regard to the date of birth, a corresponding correction had to be carried out in the service register as well. There was no ground for interference with Ext. P-4 order which held that no exceptional circumstances were made out for correction of age.

We allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, and direct that O.P. 2757 of 1976 will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.